New iMac for geeks?
OK, I realise I'm on shaky ground here - so please here me out. While I see all the benefits of the new iMac I feel that the design is geared towards the geeks, which includes most people here (jncluding me, after all - I post here!) The manouverable display, the computer in that tiny sphere. But as for the average consumer? Well, while a superdrive etc. is great I don't feel i NEED one, and I'm sure other consumers feel like that too. The same with the LCD - a lot of expense for whats really a luxury. I've made my criticism of the new design often enough and actually prefer the old iMac, I may upgrade to the SE of the last revision. Why? Well as some have said the old iMac was good beacuse it looked 'cute', or perhaps more specifically - not so COMPUTER like. The new iMac definitely looks computer like, telescreen from 1984 like, and that base does just look naff - regardless of how much stuff is inside it. What I want, and I think many consumers would like (and I mean your average Jo Bloggs here) is all the gubbins of the new iMac in a slightly thicker LCD case - in fact, why thicker? - as I so often say they can get it all in an inch of Powerbook. Dare I say it, I even prefer the old iMac form factor.
Don't crucify me for this. Its my opinion and I'm entitled to it. While I agree that the new iMac is incredible in what it acheives I think its abandoned the old iMac's premise of being a computer for the home rather than an object of lust for the nerd.
Don't crucify me for this. Its my opinion and I'm entitled to it. While I agree that the new iMac is incredible in what it acheives I think its abandoned the old iMac's premise of being a computer for the home rather than an object of lust for the nerd.
Comments
Further more I don't know about the price?? I agree with alot of others that the iMac has great value, but a few things lack. As I mentioned expandability, but more importantly (IMO) you can't use the screen with your next computer, which makes it a pretty expensive screen.
As for form factor, the new iMac is cute with its shape and movement as opposed to its color and transparent plastics.
Apple products are so much more appreciated/understood in the flesh compared to photos... Much like women really
__________________
[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Anders ]</p>
[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Macintosh ]
[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Macintosh ]</p>
I think its more of a marketing issue. Should the iMac II have been called "iMac"? I bet this is a question, Jobs and his marketing Team had nightlong discussions about. Yes, the first one was very cute and therefore was loved even by many users who used to be scared by any technicnal device, more complicated than a toaster. Looking at the old iMac, it is irritating, that the new on still is called iMac, due to the fact, that you can't really compare them. Obviously just "All In One" is not all the old iMac was about.
[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: RonTek ]</p>
<strong>At first: I really love the new iMac but I love my old DV400 (lime) too.
I think its more of a marketing issue. Should the iMac II have been called "iMac"? I bet this is a question, Jobs and his marketing Team had nightlong discussions about. Yes, the first one was very cute and therefore was loved even by many users who used to be scared by any technicnal device, more complicated than a toaster. Looking at the old iMac, it is irritating, that the new on still is called iMac, due to the fact, that you can't really compare them. Obviously just "All In One" is not all the old iMac was about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I suppose this is what I'm getting at. While I take previous comments about the LCD display and Superdrive, what I'm referring to is the form factor. Come on - the new iMac is not all in one, its all-in-one with a monitor stuck on a stick at the top. What I, and I think the consumers RonTek is referring to, those scared by modern technology, wanted was an upadte to the current iMac. Maybe with an LCD, maybe with a Superdrive. Franly I've had have bought the current form factor but with a G4 and combo/drive. I think there is a market for a machine like the OLD iMac that looked more like a colourful all in one TV/DVD player than a computer. The new iMac looks more like the computers you see in banks. Its modern, its minimalist, it grabs attention. What I like about the old design is that it is different but its understated, its not a computer that would grab attention like the new iMac or any enormous tower and monitor combo. Lets face it, there is a lot of wasted sapce on the new machine between the sphere and and the screen. The new machine, because of the sphere, has a larger footprint than a flat screen, LCD iMac based on the old form would have had. I hope Apple rethinks this and maybe realises that there is a market for something like the old iMac. If it doesn't, and the new iMac is the only option for the next few years (besides a PowerMac) for someone like me, then when I change my current iMac I may look for something in the PC sector.
Classic iMac[*]Height: 15.0 inches (38.1 cm)[*]Width: 15.0 inches (38.1 cm)[*]Depth: 17.1 inches (43.5 cm)[*]Weight: 34.7 pounds (15.8 kg)
The differences between them doesn't seem great.The Classic iMac's form factor was based on it using a CRT. How could that form factor be good for an LCD screen? Once you remove the bubble and the CRT you know what you're left with? Just a long rather than round version of the new iMac.
[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: imacSE ]</p>
<strong>New iMac[*]Height: 12.95 inches (32.9 cm) minimum; 20.0 inches (50.9 cm) maximum[*]Width: 15.1 inches (38.3 cm) minimum; 16.3 inches (41.5 cm) maximum[*]Depth: 10.6 inches (27.0 cm) minimum; 16.3 inches (41.5 cm) maximum[*]Diameter of base: 10.6 inches (27.0 cm)
Classic iMac[*]Height: 15.0 inches (38.1 cm)[*]Width: 15.0 inches (38.1 cm)[*]Depth: 17.1 inches (43.5 cm)[*]Weight: 34.7 pounds (15.8 kg)
The differences between them doesn't seem great.The Classic iMac's form factor was based on it using a CRT. How could that form factor be good for an LCD screen? Once you remove the bubble and the CRT you know what you're left with? Just a long rather than round version of the new iMac.
[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: imacSE ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
But I keep coming back to the fact that if the new iMac could be just an 1" deep, after all the TiPowerbook is, I don't see why the same couldn't be true of the iMac. Let's face it, even if it wasn't slightly deeper than the Powerbook, I dunno why - costs? - then I think that would be better than the new iMac. Fine, make it deeper. Make it 2" deep or so, that the speakers etc. are ALL included in the new case, and I mean proper speakers. The new iMac has abandoned the real 'all-in-one' look of the original, and in so doing, I think, has abandoned the psychological benefit of the iMac - it just doesn' look so easy.
Did you hear a word that Steve said? You miss the entire point of the new iMac.
<strong>Superdrive would make it more than 1" deep. Cant turn a drive on the side for optimum performance.
Did you hear a word that Steve said? You miss the entire point of the new iMac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes I did thanks, and there's no need to be so patronising and rude. I watched the keynote, expecting to buy a new iMac and now voicing my personal dissatisfaction with the product, which I think others will feel too. Steve's words about the drive were hollow - do you remember how the drive in the Cube was positioned? That included either a CD-RW and DVD, and considering one of them could burn discs on its side I feel there's no reason why the new iMac couldn't also have its drive positioned thus. I think it's all down to Steve's arrogance and trying to do something different, and I think the new machine just looks too weird for many consumers.
[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: mpw_amherst ]</p>
<strong>
Yes I did thanks, and there's no need to be so patronising and rude. I watched the keynote, expecting to buy a new iMac and now voicing my personal dissatisfaction with the product, which I think others will feel too. Steve's words about the drive were hollow - do you remember how the drive in the Cube was positioned? That included either a CD-RW and DVD, and considering one of them could burn discs on its side I feel there's no reason why the new iMac couldn't also have its drive positioned thus. I think it's all down to Steve's arrogance and trying to do something different, and I think the new machine just looks too weird for many consumers.
[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: mpw_amherst ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
If the machine looked too weird then why do so many people have desk lamps that look similar?
I have a G4 Cube and I can tell you that the drive speed sucks! It takes like an hour for a disk to be recognized and the thing is VERY loud.
If PC people have beige boxes now what would it matter if they had something that looked good enough to get put on the cover of Time? If they dont care about looks now how could the iMac bother them?
It seems that you are the one being hollow. The iMac is the best "one size fits all" computer, hands down. I am sorry that you happen to have the rare FAT HEAD.
[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Macintosh ]</p>
<strong>
If the machine looked too weird then why do so many people have desk lamps that look similar?
I have a G4 Cube and I can tell you that the drive speed sucks! It takes like an hour for a disk to be recognized and the thing is VERY loud.
If PC people have beige boxes now what would it matter if they had something that looked good enough to get put on the cover of Time? If they dont care about looks now how could the iMac bother them?
It seems that you are the one being hollow. The iMac is the best "one size fits all" computer, hands down. I am sorry that you happen to have the rare FAT HEAD.
[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Macintosh ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is what annoys me about people like you - one criticism of Apple and I must be a 'FAT HEAD'. I've bought and have numerous Macs. My sister has a Cube and has had none of the problems you refer to. I'm not just talking about PC users either (who could quite easily have some Aptiva or Vaio which DOES look good, even if not as good as some Apple products). As far as I'm concerned the greatest piece of Apple design over the last few years was the new PowerBook. I have one and love it. While I agree that new iMac is a marvel in terms of what it fits into the sphere and its spec I AM disappointed by the looks. Numerous have people have said/had said that they expected numerous comments about its design, referring to it as 'iLamp' etc. All I'm saying is that no GREAT design, such as the PowerBook, new iBook or old iMac would justify such a criticism. I'm also sad that the new machine abandons the premise of only needing to plug in the keyboard and mouse - even my old Dad can manage that. Odd as it may sound, when you get speakers and the such it all gets more compliacted. Hence my point, it just 'looks' more complicated. Still a good design, I grant you, but not what I and many others wanted from the new iMac, I think its much more of a Cube replacement than an iMac replacement.
I agree, but my theory is this: They had two products, one that sold(imac) and one that didn't(Cube); Cube had great form, but couldn't be marketed and the iMac had less form (not to say it was bad, but from a tech. point of view it's no 8inch cube) and could be marketed. So what they did was recycled the Cube technology and took the name of a product that has proven to be marketable. This is why they recycled the name iMac
But this is just my theory.
<strong>
This is what annoys me about people like you - one criticism of Apple and I must be a 'FAT HEAD'. I've bought and have numerous Macs. My sister has a Cube and has had none of the problems you refer to. I'm not just talking about PC users either (who could quite easily have some Aptiva or Vaio which DOES look good, even if not as good as some Apple products). As far as I'm concerned the greatest piece of Apple design over the last few years was the new PowerBook. I have one and love it. While I agree that new iMac is a marvel in terms of what it fits into the sphere and its spec I AM disappointed by the looks. Numerous have people have said/had said that they expected numerous comments about its design, referring to it as 'iLamp' etc. All I'm saying is that no GREAT design, such as the PowerBook, new iBook or old iMac would justify such a criticism. I'm also sad that the new machine abandons the premise of only needing to plug in the keyboard and mouse - even my old Dad can manage that. Odd as it may sound, when you get speakers and the such it all gets more compliacted. Hence my point, it just 'looks' more complicated. Still a good design, I grant you, but not what I and many others wanted from the new iMac, I think its much more of a Cube replacement than an iMac replacement.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You and many others?
A Cube replacement? The imac starts at 1299 the Cube started at 1799 with no monitor. Dont go down that road.
The design may be the finest apple has ever produced, hence the massive number of first week orders. I "as well as many others" think that this new imac may be the best computer offering on the market today or in recent memory.